January 23, 2022

About Pay for Performance in the Public Sector. I care about the Quality more the Quantity. Attached a review article about

Write me a paper of 4 to 8 pages. About Pay for Performance in the Public Sector.

I care about the Quality more the Quantity. Attached a review article about the same subject (Peer norm guesses and self-reported attitudes towards performance-related pay) Use this article to write the argument and if you agree or disagree.

The First part will be about the authors and what they do (one paragraph).
The Second part will be a summary and rephrase of the article’s conclusions (one Paragraph).
The Third part will be the argument and if you agree or disagree with the authors point of view (three to four paragraphs).

If use any other resources please include a reference page, otherwise no need for it.

Thank you for your time.

also the paper is a MLA form but the professor wanted more informal

so it is not as a regular argument essay with Intro, and body and conclusion.

I wanted to be the same as I describe it in the discription.

20180407222208peer_norm_guesses_and_self_reported_attitudes_towards_performance_related_pay.pdf

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Peer norm guesses and self-reported

attitudes towards performance-related pay

Nikolaos Georgantzis 1,2*, Efi Vasileiou2,3, Iordanis Kotzaivazoglou4

1 School of Agriculture Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom,

2 Laboratori d’Economia Experimental and Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellon, Spain,

3 University of Sheffield, International Faculty, City College, Thessaloniki, Greece, 4 Technological

Educational Institute of Central Macedonia, Serres, Greece

* [email protected]

Abstract

Due to a variety of reasons, people see themselves differently from how they see others.

This basic asymmetry has broad consequences. It leads people to judge themselves and

their own behavior differently from how they judge others and others’ behavior. This

research, first, studies the perceptions and attitudes of Greek Public Sector employees

towards the introduction of Performance-Related Pay (PRP) systems trying to reveal

whether there is a divergence between individual attitudes and guesses on peers’ attitudes.

Secondly, it is investigated whether divergence between own self-reported and peer norm

guesses could mediate the acceptance of the aforementioned implementation once job sta-

tus has been controlled for. This study uses a unique questionnaire of 520 observations

which was designed to address the questions outlined in the preceding lines. Our economet-

ric results indicate that workers have heterogeneous attitudes and hold heterogeneous

beliefs on others’ expectations regarding a successful implementation of PRP. Specifically,

individual perceptions are less skeptical towards PRP than are beliefs on others’ attitudes.

Additionally, we found that managers are significantly more optimistic than lower rank

employees regarding the expected success of PRP systems in their jobs. However, they

both expect their peers to be more negative than they themselves are.

1. Introduction

It has been often documented that people tend to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs

coincide with a given social norm. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon with the term “false

consensus”.[1]. From a statistical point of view, it looks rather straightforward that, in the

absence of systematic biases, individual beliefs and individual perceptions of peer norms

should coincide at least on average. This is also compatible with a broadly accepted principle

according to which social norms play a central role in the formation of individual beliefs and

behavior [2] favoring the emergence of a (real) social consensus and “modal conformism” of

individual preferences. However, research in the field of social psychology has found that peo-

ple often misperceive the norms in their peer group. According to Epley and Dunning [3],

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724 April 17, 2017 1 / 15

a1111111111

OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Georgantzis N, Vasileiou E,

Kotzaivazoglou I (2017) Peer norm guesses and

self-reported attitudes towards performance-

related pay. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174724. https://

doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724

Editor: Pablo Brañas-Garza, Middlesex University, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: November 14, 2016

Accepted: March 14, 2017

Published: April 17, 2017

the Creative Commons Attribution License, which

permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original

author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: all relevant data are in

the paper and supporting information files

Funding: The authors received no specific funding

for this work

Competing interests: The authors have declared

that no competing interests exist

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0174724&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-04-17

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

such differences in how people see themselves versus others are rooted in basic processes of

human perception. It is almost axiomatic that as long as people are in a position to perceive

themselves and to perceive others, differences in those perceptions will exist and will engender

disagreement, misunderstanding, and conflict. Due to a variety of reasons, people see them-

selves differently from how they see others. They are immersed in their own sensations, emo-

tions, and cognitions at the same time that their experience of others is dominated by what can

be observed externally. This basic asymmetry has broad consequences. It leads people to judge

themselves and their own behavior differently from how they judge others and others’ behav-

ior [4]. Recent research in food choice [5] has revealed a systematic pattern of divergence

between individual preferences and individual beliefs regarding peer norms. In particular, it

has been observed that individuals tend to state a stronger (weaker) preference for healthy

(less healthy) food than they believe their peers do. The divergence vanishes for food which is

considered to be “neutral” (not particularly healthy or unhealthy). Therefore, individuals tend

to overestimate their acceptance of a socially desirable rule compared to what they would

guess regarding others. Humphrey [6] found that subordinate workers undervalue their fel-

lows’ subordinates and overvalue their managers. His findings are based on the structural cog-

nitive model assuming that organizational structures influence the information that actors

have about each other. The magnitude of the difference in how you perceive yourself from

how you perceive others is systematic and predictable. For example, “closer” others are per-

ceived in more self-like ways than more “distant” others [7]. However, the sign of the differ-

ence and its determinants are not fully understood.

Our research also relates to the literature on extrinsic versus intrinsic incentives in labor

relations. Following the literature on gift exchange, a reliable worker would reciprocate to a

generous employer in a way which does not require the performance-contingent, ex ante

establishment of compensating incentives rules like PR contracts [8]. In the Akerlof [8] model,

higher pay always leads to higher effort (though firms clearly would not wish to pay for

unbounded effort) and if worker effort depends on a reference wage, then it may be logical for

firms to pay a wage above that level to obtain extra effort. However, extrinsic incentives may

"crowd out" intrinsic ones, yielding the contrary effects to the pretended increased motivation

and higher effort [9, 10]. Behavioral economists recognized that extrinsic incentives (rewards)

may positively affect individuals only in the short run, but in the long run they might decrease

motivation [11]. They explain that extrinsic motivation has a limited impact on actual perfor-

mance while it may reduce the agent’s motivation to undertake similar tasks in the future. In

fact, [12] warn us that "there is no doubt that the benefits [piece-rate systems or pay-for-per-

formance incentive devices] can be considerably compromised when the systems undermine

workers’ intrinsic motivation. Some of these findings are confirmed by the perceived potential

effects of Performance-Related Pay (PRP) on intrinsic motivation. A variety of psychological

theories have been used to designate the role of pay in motivation. Nevertheless, expert opin-

ions for the effectiveness of pay as a motivator have historically been divided. Motivational the-

ories can be classified in two groups, according to the importance they assign to pay as a

motivator. The first group of theories, including Maslow’s need hierarchy theory [13], Herz-

berg’s motivation-hygiene theory [14] and Ryan and Deci’s [15] self-determination theory,

questions the contribution of monetary rewards to performance enhancement. It mainly

emphasizes internal motives and intrinsic rewards, such as recognition, social relations, self-

actualization, job enrichment or autonomy. It asserts that money helps employees to meet

only ‘basic needs’ and prevents dissatisfaction; however, pay cannot promote satisfaction.

Hence, the motivational effect of financial incentives may be not only limited, but also negative

[16]. On the contrary, the second group of theories, including reinforcement theory, expec-

tancy theory, equity theory or goal-setting theory, mainly concentrates on the process by

Attitudes towards performance-related pay: Me versus others

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724 April 17, 2017 2 / 15

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724

which desired behavior is stimulated and enhanced, and advocate that there is a strong, posi-

tive pay-motivation relationship [17]. In general terms, these theories argue that individuals

are motivated when they are challenged and reinforced to attain clear, measurable and de-

manding but reasonable goals with valued and fair rewards. They imply that for most employ-

ees, money is the primary reason for working; therefore, pay is potentially a very effective

means for improving performance [18].

We report results on the elicitation of beliefs and peer norm guesses providing evidence on

the divergence between individual attitudes and guesses on peers’ attitudes. We also find evi-

dence on the perceived negative effects of PRP on intrinsic motivation. Respondents report a

more optimistic expectation regarding the success of a PRP scheme in their working environ-

ment as compared to their guesses on their peers’ expectations. We find that managers are

more optimistic than clerical employees regarding the success of the scheme, but they both

expect their peers to be more negative than they themselves are. Overall, we believe that under-

standing the existence of these misperceptions may help us to understand perceived norms

and behavioral patterns in the working environment in order to successfully implement neces-

sary reforms in the public sector.

2. Data and measures

2.1. Respondents and procedure

The current study is based on data from public servants in northern Greece. The questionnaire

was administrated in January 2015 at the National Centre for Public Administration and Local

Government (EKDDA) and more specifically its decentralized Thessaloniki annex, PINEPTH.

PINEPTH covers the northern part of Greece and serves a population approaching 40% of the

public servants in Greece. The Thessaloniki Section of the Institute of Life-Long Education

(INEP) has among its objectives to educate those working in the public sector and the local

administration. The Institute belongs to the National Centre for Public Administration and

Local Government (EKDDA) which is the national strategic agent for the development of

Human Resources of the Public Administration and Local Government (http://www.ekdd.gr/

ekdda/index.php/en/2012-06-29-09-59-33). While attendance in the courses is voluntary, par-

ticipation of public employees is very high because of the weight the courses have in promo-

tions to a higher administrative rank. Therefore, access to the participants in the courses of the

institute guarantees a representative sample, including people from a broad range of geographi-

cal areas, hierarchy ranks and institutions. While the INEP evaluates participants in the frame-

work of the aforementioned courses and it may carry out its own research, the survey whose

data are used hereby was administered independently with a clear indication that the informa-

tion would be used under strict anonymity, exclusively for the purposes of this research, which

was undertaken by autonomous researchers belonging to academic institutions only.

A permission was first guaranteed by the INEP for the survey to be distributed to the atten-

dants in its courses. Further, it was made clear to them, that individual participation was vol-

untary. The Ethics Committee of the School of Agriculture Policy and Development at the

University of Reading approved this study.

We distributed a total of 840 questionnaires during the first break of the morning class.

Responses were collected at the end of the same day, allowing for about five hours within

which the survey could be completed. A relatively high rate of responses was obtained, with

584 questionnaires returned to us fully or partially completed. To avoid the problem of missing

variables, we used the sample of 520 complete responses.

The primary data for our assessment of PRP traits took the form of questionnaire responses

indicating personal perceptions of, and attitudes towards, general practice in the context of the

Attitudes towards performance-related pay: Me versus others

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724 April 17, 2017 3 / 15

http://www.ekdd.gr/ekdda/index.php/en/2012-06-29-09-59-33

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724

forthcoming adoption of PRP in the Greek public sector. It must be stressed that the definition

of PRP incentives and their precise characteristics are still subject to debate. As no standard

instrument for the assessment of PRP traits being available for this context, we designed our

own, as follow.

Each respondent was confronted with 11 questions, on each of which he/she was invited to

express an opinion on a 5-point scale. The scale ranged through strongly disagree (1), disagree

(2), unsure (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). Table 1 reports the definition of each variable.

The questions are numbered according to their appearance on the original questionnaire. Fre-

quency distributions of responses to each of the 11 attitudinal statements appear in Table 2.

The questionnaire additionally requested information on respondents´ on personal infor-

mation (such as gender) and on Job characteristics (position in service and job satisfaction).

The questionnaire included demographics and other individual information like years of

employment in the public sector, education, age, but have been omitted from the model, as

they did not appear to be significant in any of the specifications estimated.

2.2. Measures of “own perception” and “my perceptions on others’

perceptions”

As stated previously, people hold heterogeneous beliefs on others’ expectations. In order to

consider whether there is divergence between first- and second-order beliefs (my beliefs on

others’ beliefs). we use the following two questions allowing for “me versus others” compari-

sons. Therefore, the survey contained a question about employee’s own behavior (e.g. “In your opinion, could an introduction of a PRP system be effectively implemented in your job (sec- tion)?”), and a question about respondents’ perceptions of others’ attitudes (e.g. “In your opin- ion, which would your colleagues’ attitude be towards the introduction of a PRP system?”). Responses were provided on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).

Fig 1 shows that approximately 20% of workers believe in a very successful implementation

of the PRP system in their division. Interestingly, the perception the workers have on their

coworkers’ reaction to the likelihood of a PRP system would be different. In terms of cowork-

ers’ expectations regarding PRP implementation only 8,3% of workers believe that others’ atti-

tude towards a PRP system could be positive. On the other hand, for those who believe that a

PRP system could be unsuccessfully implemented, 39,7% believe that this would arise due to

their coworkers’ reaction and only 27,9% due to their own.

Additionally, in Table 3, we present descriptive statistics of “own perception”, “my percep-

tion on others’ perceptions” and “me-vs-others misperceptions”. Misperceptions of others’

attitudes are calculated by subtracting the median of the behavior for each employee group

from each respondent’s reported perception of their employee’s behavior. Therefore, each

respondent has a misperception score which, if positive, indicated that they thought that other

employees would be more negative towards the implementation of a PRP system in their job

than their own attitudes. On average employees underestimate peers’ reaction on the success-

ful implementation of the PRP system with an own mean of 3.86 versus a mean of 3.17 for oth-

ers. To test whether there were significant misperceptions across the sample we conducted

one-sample t-tests comparing the mean misperception for each category with a value of zero.

All misperceptions were significantly different from zero.

3. Empirical methodology

This study followed the methodology for measuring self-vs.-other discrepancies between atti-

tudes by asking employees to express an opinion on what others would think regarding a possi- ble implementation of a PRP scheme in their job. The methodology employed is based on

Attitudes towards performance-related pay: Me versus others

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724 April 17, 2017 4 / 15

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174724

regressions that relate the acceptability of PRP system to a set of attitudinal statements. The

definition variables included in the model are presented in Table 1. The dependent variable is

an ordered categorical variable taking on a finite number of outcomes, on a scale of 1 to 7, rep-

resenting the lowest and highest rating respectively. (“In your opinion, could an introduction of a PRP system be effectively implemented in your job (section)?”), which means that respondents

Table 1. Variables List.

Variables Definition

Attitudinal traits

Q 1. A PRP system help the workforce to improve

its productivity

Dummy variable equal to 1 if the individuals; reported